role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 18, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-May-18 (PDF)

L061 - Thu 18 May 2000 / Jeu 18 mai 2000

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RAVES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES RAVES

TEACHER TESTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AGRICULTURAL TRADE SHOW

EVENTS IN CORNWALL

SENIORS GAMES

ONTARIO WHOLE FARM RELIEF

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

EVENTS IN NIAGARA REGION

SPECIAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

SPEAKER'S RULING

MOTIONS

SPECIAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RAVES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES RAVES

Mrs Pupatello moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 73,

An Act to promote public peace and safety by regulating late-night dance events / Projet de loi 73, Loi visant à promouvoir la paix et la sécurité publiques en réglementant les danses nocturnes.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I am very pleased to be debating Bill 73, the Raves Act, 2000. I want to give a little bit of background about how we came to be debating this bill in the House, talking about this bill in the Legislature, and how we came to require, in my view, regulation of raves.

Educators were telling me what they were seeing in the classrooms. This began last fall, in November. What they were seeing was excellent students suddenly missing classes on Mondays and Tuesdays on a regular basis, with grades crashing through the floor and kids sick all the time, not the typical kids who you might think might be involved in drugs but excellent athletes, excellent grade A students. What they realized was that these kids were raving all weekend and crashing on Mondays and Tuesdays.

What we did then was meet with a larger group of individuals-police authorities, the RCMP, the Windsor police, educators, guidance counsellors-and in that round table discussion we learned that this was not an isolated incident but rather was widespread in the school system and something that educators and police knew had to be dealt with.

What happened after that was quite interesting, because it drove me to my brief visit to a rave club to see for myself what I had heard that morning, which was quite a surprise to me and I think would be to most people my age and most parents of teenagers.

What we saw was that the use of ecstasy was widespread, and that the most frequent access point seemed to be raves. If they don't buy it at the rave, they are certainly using it in order to go to the rave. The raves are set up to enhance the experience and the physical effects of the drug, so the lighting is dark, with strobe lighting and the beat of the techno music.

What we realized after launching a community task force to address the issue was that we needed to have two avenues of approach. One of them, and the most important, had to be education of students as to the dangers of ecstasy. There is a belief among young people that this drug is safe, and it simply is not. This drug has killed people. Number two, the rave itself has to be a regulated, safe venue and we, as legislators, have a responsibility to enact that.

On the first point, in terms of education, what this community task force did was launch a curriculum piece so that my Windsor board would have a video that is informational for students and parents. Students would take the video home, watch the video with their parents and do a follow-up exercise that would invoke a conversation among young people and their parents about what a rave is, what happens at a rave, what the drug ecstasy is and what other designer drugs are about these days.

What people, especially parents, will be surprised to learn is the kind of paraphernalia that is out there today, things like Pez dispensers and what they're used for, why it is that candy pacifiers are suddenly all the rage. The effect of the drug ecstasy often causes jaw clenching and young people will use pacifiers to stop that effect. Parents will also learn what the pills themselves look like.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member knows that isn't-

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, Speaker. They have a "CK" emblem on them, for example, which represents Calvin Klein; "Mitsubishi," "Mercedes," stamped on the actual pill-

Interjections.

Mrs Pupatello: Excuse me, Speaker, but this a very important debate and I don't expect to be interrupted at this time.

These pills have insignias on them to attract young people to want to take them. They look like candy and the names of such drugs are "Seven of Diamonds," "The Butterfly," "McDonald's." Often they have comic characters on them so that they appeal to them. That in essence is the purpose of the education piece. But this is news to parents and they need to understand why these candies of old are suddenly new again and what their use is and why they are suddenly so popular. We don't imply that young people who use these are necessarily taking the drug, but it certainly is current among those who are.

The other avenue that is just as necessary as the education of parents and young people is regulation. To that end, it brings us very much to this bill today and the purpose of it. This bill, the Raves Act, simply put, allows the holding of a rave once a permit has been issued. The bill allows municipalities to set conditions for which that permit would then be issued.

In response to the information we gathered, especially at the summit that was held in March of this year at the Toronto headquarters and attended widely by municipal administrators and police authorities from across the province, property owners would now be compelled to rent or lease their space for the purpose of a rave only once a permit had been issued. It also would allow police to lawfully enter the premises, ensuring that the conditions set for the permit are being met. Yes, it allows the police to respond as well if the conditions are not being met.

Let me say that in essence the bill provides similar authority to that which currently exists under the Liquor Licence Act. Raves don't have a liquor licence typically. They apply for no such liquor licence, then, and are not subject to those controls. Decades ago, in 1946 in fact, when the Liquor Control Act was struck, raves were not the issue, bars were, and governments responded at that time to set the conditions required for the lawful, safe drinking establishments we often have today. There was not a need for safety measures in venues for raves. Today there is.

It is the government's responsibility to respond to what happens in the year 2000, and there are certainly raves going on today.

Let me say unequivocally that we cannot ban raves. I cannot support the notion that we could ever ban raves. They happen. They are currently legal in our community. In fact, just because raves seem to be the greatest access point for ecstasy-if people were buying ecstasy at A&P parking lots, we would not be standing here today looking to ban A&Ps or the parking lots. What we would be doing is talking about how we have to make those venues safer.

The municipalities must be smart in how they choose to set the conditions for obtaining permits to hold a rave. All of us are going to be responsible if the raves are driven underground when people may choose to try to ban them. They will be a greater menace to young people than the dance outlets they are currently. It is important that we note that every generation has had its venue, and the older generations of those have thought they were crazy or, at a minimum, very different. We cannot ban this kind of expression for our young people.

This bill would allow raves. Municipalities might set conditions that they would only be held in certain geographic areas; for example, not in an industrial

section of town where warehouses were never built for the purpose of housing thousands and thousands of young people, with little ventilation or not a minimum number of exits in case there was a disaster. It also wouldn't allow for the kind of cooling system required after all the gyration to the techno music, which seems to be the thing at a rave.

A city might want to consider an age minimum. In terms of what I have seen, very young people, 12 and 13 years old, have been at these raves. We don't know why parents would have kids that young out all night. In my city, I spoke with parents who thought this was a very safe place to send their kids, because they knew it didn't have a liquor licence and frankly were not aware of what else was found on the premises. Parents might understand that if their children are old enough to drive a car, then they're old enough to be responsible, and an age limit might be something reasonable, if it were 16.

The level of security that exists at a rave, whether there is fire and ambulance available at the site in case there is an accident, the exits and the availability of drinking water are the kinds of things that likely would be fair conditions for a permit to be issued.

I have to say that I applaud the efforts of the local Toronto safe dance community. They have worked very hard to come up with a safe protocol. Their safe protocol for dances was adopted by my own city of Windsor, and it's the kind of protocol that has to be brought into legislation.

Has enough been done? I would say that not enough has been done, because they still are not safe places for young people. I feel this bill will go a long way toward making raves a safe place for our young people. I look forward to the debate today, and I especially look forward to support from all members of the House when it comes time to vote on the Raves Act.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I'm going to say from the outset that I'm not supporting this bill today. I look around this chamber, and there are not a lot of us here, but, I see us and I think that many of us grew up in the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Yea.

Ms Churley: Yea. I remember. Many of us here-not all-grew up, and I remember, as a young person, going to love-ins and peace events and all kinds of things then. I remember very well, as a young woman, going to these events with thousands of other kids and, yes, there would be drugs around, and sour-faced, stern, uptight, middle-aged politicians coming on TV and trying to stop our fun.

When I say that, I will say right away that we should say no to kids taking drugs. I am not advocating that kids should be taking drugs, and we should do everything we can to educate kids and their parents about the use of drugs and how it can be harmful. We know some of those kids are taking ecstasy. That is a problem. I think one of the problems in our society is that we're set up in such a way as to say, "Drugs are bad; don't take them," when we know the kids are taking drugs. There needs to be widespread education.

Just because Sandra Pupatello or I stand up today and say, "Drugs are bad; don't take them," those kids aren't going to listen to us, and their parents have no control of them when they're out of the house.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): So we just give up?

Ms Churley: No, we don't just give up. They need to be educated about what ecstasy is and what it does to them: If they take too much they get dehydrated, and they dance; they should be taking liquids. You have to deal with this realistically. I'm not advocating that they take drugs, but if they're taking them we have to educate them and let them make decisions based on the knowledge we give them.

To me, this bill is not about dealing with drugs; it's controlling raves. The municipality of Toronto at one point came up with a protocol. Working with kids who go to those raves was very good. Then the hysteria started. I see it as an attack on young people. There's this absolute hysteria around raves. What we should be dealing with here are drugs and the drug dealers. That is the big issue here.

Raves should not be dealt with in terms of law and order. They should be dealt with in terms of-what's used at city hall is "harm reduction model." I think the kids don't like that term, but we want to make our kids safe. I have no problem with that, and most of the criteria in this bill I have no problem with. But listen to the way raves-raves aren't even mentioned here. Listen to the way the events are described here.

"`Rave' means an event with all of the following attributes:

"1. Any part of the event occurs between 2 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.

"2. People must pay money or give some other consideration to participate in the event.

"3. The primary activity at the event is dancing by the participants.

"4. The event does not take place in a private dwelling."

For heaven's sakes, that definition could apply to a late-night Greek event in my riding. We dance all night sometimes.

There's a real problem with the definition here, and I could see some municipalities who do want to crack down on kids having fun using this not to license anything. It's a real problem.

Let me be clear on this: These kids should not be doing drugs. And let me be clear in that I am saying that everything that we can do as a society to prevent the harm that comes from doing drugs should be done. But I do not believe that this bill before us today deals with that adequately. I believe the city of Toronto in particular had set up a really good protocol, working directly with the kids, that until this hysteria came out was working quite well. We don't want to drive these things underground and we don't want some municipalities telling kids that they can't have fun. I believe this bill can lead to that.

Speaking of the 1960s, it reminds me of a song. I'm going to quote Bob Dylan. It's from Highway 61 Revisited. The line is: "You know something's happening, but you don't what it is, do you, Ms Pupatello?" Of course the real line was, "Do you, Mr Jones?"

I believe these kinds of problems have to be worked out with the young people who are involved in it. There are thousands of well-intentioned, good kids who go to those raves, and they feel like they're being attacked by politicians in general these days.

I started off by saying that many of us come from the 1960s. I'm wondering how many people here could say honestly that they didn't experiment with drugs in the 1960s and 1970s.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I didn't.

Ms Churley: Well, you're too young.

Young people tend to do that. I'll say again that we have to do everything we can to educate kids and prevent them from taking drugs. But our standing up and saying, "Don't do it, it's bad," is not going to stop them.

So what I would like to see happen is for the hysteria to be toned down, for us to get together with these kids to set up, as the city of Toronto has done, protocols around how these raves can happen in a safe and appropriate way. I don't believe we should be dealing with it in this way, in a law-and-order way, but to sit down with the kids and work out protocols and also to concentrate and focus more on drug education.

I believe that can be done, so I'm not supporting this bill today. I'd be happy to talk with the member and others who are interested in sitting down with the young people and coming up with ideas of how we can work with the municipalities in such a way that these raves can happen in a safe environment where kids do not feel like they're once again under attack by middle-aged, sour-faced politicians who don't know what we're talking about. I think we need to dialogue with them a lot more before we start passing these kinds of bills.

I'll finish by saying that I believe the municipalities should be involved in making sure that these kids are in safe places, but we shouldn't be approaching it in this law and order way. Again I come back to this

section which could involve a lot more than thousands of kids at a rave.

Mr O'Toole: It's my pleasure to share my time this morning. As the parliamentary assistant to the minister, I spent a lot of time looking at this issue. I want to put a few remarks on the record.

You have to look at what the government is doing today. Starting back in March when this had come to have more currency as an issue in the media-it was March 14-Minister Runciman convened a sort of symposium of stakeholders in dealing with the issue. I commend Minister Runciman, a former Solicitor General, for trying to bring some order to it under his ministry. Of course, the ministry deals with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, and also the alcohol acts. They brought together local police and law enforcement agencies and other jurisdictions to work in a co-operative framework.

That's what happened, and from that a report is expected back by the end of May, a coordinated enforcement strategy, to deal with it. So I think that's one point that should be on the record.

Of course, it has a lot of currency in the media today with the inquest that's going on, the sad situation with a young person succumbing to ecstasy, or just the whole idea of an environment that's not appropriately safe for young people.

The minister's position on it: The member from Windsor West has the right sentiments, certainly, but I think there are some inherent flaws in the legislation, and some of the members may point that out. I don't think the bill goes quite far enough. In some respects there are legislative reference points or information or laws today that could be enforced through the Municipal Act and other acts.

I've got some comments that I want to put on the record.

I understand the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has reviewed the bill and I would be interested to hear the analysis of how Bill 73's requirements for municipalities compares with enabling powers that municipalities currently have to establish by-laws. While this specific bill addresses the potential role of municipalities in regulating raves, there's much more that could be looked at to prevent illegal activities from occurring at raves. I believe that ultimately an interdisciplinary approach in dealing with the issue is demanded. As I said before, the minister is working with that coordinated strategy approach.

There are parts of Bill 73 that touch on areas that are the responsibility of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, and again, I would like the hear their analysis of how Bill 73 compares to the existing powers of police and fire services.

The only provisions of Bill 73 that relate to the specifics of the legislative responsibilities of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations are referenced in subsection 2(3) of the Liquor Licensing Act, LLA. This measure would oblige the municipalities when considering the approval of a rave to liaise with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and is consistent with the minister's interdisciplinary co-operative enforcement initiatives that are already underway. I expect I can say that the minister will bring forward a much more mature and well-developed legislative piece in the fall. Haste often creates bad legislation.

On March 14, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, with his colleague the Solicitor General, convened a meeting, as I've said before. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss how the many organizations could use their enforcement powers in a coordinated manner to crack down on illegal drugs and unlawful activities at various venues, parties and raves. Of course, it doesn't quite go far enough in the definition of raves, after-hours clubs and other kind of convened events that we've heard in the news constitute a safety hazard and a danger to our communities.

I'm going to try and save as much time for the member as I can, because he certainly is an expert, having worked 20 years in the addiction area. He has a lot more to add on the lack.

I think it would suffice to say that in a general sense I don't think the ministry has any problem with the bill, except to say that it's not strong enough, doesn't go far enough, doesn't address some of the enforcement issues that already exist in current legislation.

I sincerely appreciate the perspective that the member for Broadview-Greenwood has brought to it, saying that every generation has its little venue for acting out. This has probably gone too far and the reason for that is the drug part of it. That's really a significant issue, and I suspect the member for Windsor West has been watching the rave scene and the after-hours scene very closely.

Mrs Pupatello: Not personally.

Mr O'Toole: Well, not personally, but I'm saying from a legislative perspective. I applaud her for bringing this to the media and to their attention.

This is the concluding remark on behalf of the Solicitor General and on behalf of our Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Safe communities are the focus of this whole debate. We're for safe communities. You can count on us to be there and have the right laws in the right place at the right time.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): Let me begin by congratulating the member for Windsor West for not only bringing forth this legislation, not only undertaking the education campaign that is represented by the videos that are being distributed across the province, but also for rolling up her sleeves and quite literally getting down into the trenches to find out about this important issue in this province.

She went to a rave. How many members are willing to go that extra mile to find out what's actually happening, as opposed to simply reading it in the newspaper? I congratulate the member for doing that and for bringing forth legislation, yet again on this side of the House, before anything has been brought forward by the government. This is an important issue which is the subject of an inquest. I understood by the comments from the member for Durham that the government supports the intention of the bill, and I would encourage members on the other side of the House to take that into account as they consider whether or not to support the bill.

This is an important issue in the city in which I am an MPP. The issue of raves is such that, frankly, ecstasy is the number one street drug in the city of Toronto right now. Ecstasy kills. It has killed nearly a dozen people in the province. It is the subject of an inquest, the Allan Ho inquest, which is ongoing. Anybody who thinks this drug is simply a feel-good drug needs to roll up their sleeves and find out what the drug is all about, as the member for Windsor West has done.

Let me also say that this approach, unlike what we heard from the member for Broadview-Greenwood, is not a ham-handed approach. In fact, this is an approach which recognizes the fact that you cannot simply ban raves and hope they go away. How do I know that? To begin with, we know from an expert who testified before the Allan Ho inquest by the name of Trinka Porrata that: "You can't make it go away," in her words, "by just saying, `No more raves.' That's not the solution." That was her experience based on setting forth anti-rave legislation in the state of California.

When I was teaching at a law school in England-King's College, London-we had at the time to go over the Tory legislation that dealt with raves. They defined the throbbing, beating music that was outlawed and not permitted in open spaces. Of course it was impossible to enforce it and therefore raves continued to thrive.

The problem here, again, is not the music and not the gathering; it's the drugs. Chief Fantino has said that the problem for him is not the raves; it's the drugs. He said at a recent community meeting, "My whole concern is pervasive drug use and the drug dealers that converge on these venues."

So this approach is not the ham-handed approach which just says, "Let's ban it and hope the talk-show circuit says we're taking it seriously," but then really has no effect whatsoever. It's not the approach, for example, that this government took with respect to the squeegee bill. Instead, it recognizes that we have to give municipalities the power to control these, and we need to set forth limits. On this point, I respectfully diverge from the member for Broadview-Greenwood. Yes, we need to work with those who are attending raves to set forth protocols.

But if we have a drug epidemic at these parties, it's our job as legislators to bring forth legislation that will regulate raves, set forth sanctions for those who misuse the venues, set forth sanctions for those who are trying to exploit those attending the venues and, in addition to that, led by the member for Windsor West, undertake an education campaign.

I'm going to support this bill, because I and the Ontario Liberals take this issue very seriously. More people will die if we don't do something about the ecstasy epidemic taking place in our province through raves, and so I will be supporting this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate. The Chair recognizes the member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): As it's called now, Speaker. It used to be Welland-Thorold. It could have been named Welland-Thorold-Pelham-St Catharines, but that would have created one of those lengthy riding names that Speakers would have forgotten too readily.

In any event, I'm listening and anxious to listen. I've got to tell you, I don't purport to speak for the whole NDP caucus here.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): You never did, Peter.

Mr Kormos: You're right. But I've not been afraid to take positions alone, without following the herd, without relying upon directions from above-not from God, but from mere party leaders.

I have real concerns about the legislation, and I'm going to tell you why. I've read the legislation. I've never been to a rave. I haven't. Unlike Tory members who look aghast, who clearly have more familiarity with these events than I do, I've never been to a rave. I suspect that if we were to go to a rave, most of us would see a huge exodus of young people who were in possession of ecstasy from the dance floor to the washrooms, and all the toilets would flush simultaneously. If most of us were to go to a rave, we'd be marked as undercover cops in a New York minute. Some undercover, huh?

The issue here is the focus on the drug ecstasy. Again, I'm familiar with ecstasy only to the extent that I've read about it in the newspapers. Reference was made to the coroner's inquest that's taking place right now, a not inappropriate reference. Really, shouldn't we be awaiting the recommendations of that jury? Shouldn't we be using that as the starting point for consideration? It has available to it an array of expertise, a list of witnesses, obviously resulting from the tragic death of a young person here in the province.

But why are we having an expensive coroner's inquest if we aren't prepared to await the results of that inquest and let that jury assess the evidence that was put before it and fulfill its obligations; to wit, make its recommendations?

It's clear that these things, these raves where young people get together and dance through the night, are incredibly popular, not just here in Toronto but across the province and internationally. I've got no quarrel with the proposition of young people getting together and dancing through the night. God bless. My problem is, at 2 am I want to be at home in bed. I simply don't have the physical endurance to pull it off. I suspect that if I were 16 or 17 in the year 2000, I'd be there in the thick of things, because I know where I was when I was 16 and 17 back in the 1960s and into the early 1970s.

Interjections.

Mr Kormos: Come on. We're all suited up and shorn here, but I know some of you were there too.

I've got a copy of an e-mail from Jacques Chamberland of Toronto to my colleague Mr Marchese. As a resident of Mr Marchese's riding, he expressed great concern about this legislation. He was concerned that it wasn't initiated with sufficient consultation not only with the young people-who, as is their right as part of their youth culture, go to raves and dance and interact with other young people, share time with their peers-but with any number of organizations that have begun to address the issue of safety at these events.

What causes me concern about the bill is that it focuses on these so-called raves. Shouldn't any public event that attracts huge numbers of people be subject to certain standards and regulations to guarantee the safety of the people participating in that event, whether it's a youth event, where ecstasy might be the drug of choice, or an adult event, where alcohol might be the drug of choice? I know the reference is to the Liquor Licence Act, which permits police to get into bars, taverns and other licensed places-a hall that's licensed for the evening for an event-and I appreciate that the author of the bill is trying to replicate that authority in this instance.

I've got to tell you that I was so pleased to see the bust at Toronto airport just a day ago, where huge quantities of this drug, ecstasy, were seized. And I agree with Chief Fantino as well when he says it's not the dancing and not the rave; it's the drugs. Jacques Chamberland talks about the eagerness of himself and others, like the Toronto Dance Safety Committee, to get involved in the process of developing health and safety standards for raves. So I am going to join with my colleague Ms Churley in not supporting this legislation, because I think we're jumping the gun. It's premature to do it without awaiting the results of the coroner's inquest and the recommendations they make.

I appreciate it's a private member's bill, and a private member doesn't have the power to force a committee hearing before second reading. I suspect the bill is going to pass, and I look forward to the committee hearings. I trust they will be as thorough and as consultative as possible, but I really want to re-address the matter of where the focus ought to be. This smacks to some people of the reefer madness, the "rock and roll causes"-I don't know what it caused-

Ms Churley: Bad things, horrible things.

Mr Kormos: -"bad things to happen," that young people dancing through the night is somehow inherently bad. It's the drugs, not the dancing.

Mr Barrett: For years and years people have been trying to explain why young people behave differently than adults, and as MPPs, we're all adults here.

Interjections.

Mr Barrett: We may not totally understand what's going on, but there is some research that may help us better understand this phenomenon and the motivations for those who attend. We know raves have been popular for the last 10 years or so, but much of this is not new. Ontario, as has been pointed out, has been dealing with drug use since the 1960s. The drug ecstasy was first synthesized in 1914, so we have some experience with this drug. My point with respect to this drug and raves is we should not reinvent the wheel.

I want to draw on some work presented by Timothy Weber, Ed Adlaf and Bob Mann with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Raving evolved in the mid-1980s in locations like Manchester, England; Detroit and Chicago. Listening to music or dancing, as we know, has always been a significant part of adolescence and young adulthood. The rave scene, again as we know from the media, has been around since the early 1990s. There are about 10,000 individuals who would identify themselves as ravers in the Toronto area.

There has been a lot of media scrutiny as of late due to the occurrences of ecstasy-linked deaths here and there around the world. Deaths linked to the use of ecstasy, which is also known as MDMA, are usually associated with the drug's ability to increase perspiration as well as heart rate. In most cases, death is the result of heat stroke. It is not necessarily linked to the toxic effects of the drug itself.

I mentioned that ecstasy has been around since 1914. It's a synthetic amphetamine. It was used as an appetite suppressant, and in the 1970s a number of psychotherapists in the United States used it as a supplement to treatment. In the 1970s and 1980s, MDMA became a recreational drug, and more recently has taken on the moniker of "ecstasy." It is a restricted drug here in Canada, referred to as a designer drug because it's produced through chemical synthesis, mostly through underground labs. I want to stress there's no medical use for this particular pharmaceutical.

Research reports that almost a third of students in Ontario have attended a rave at least once in their lifetime, or know a friend who has. Overall, 18% reported going to a rave in the last year. The drugs most commonly observed being used are marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics as well as ecstasy. Many attendees across Ontario are also involved in bush parties, something of concern in my rural riding of Haldimand-Norfolk. Despite the stereotype of rave attendees being involved heavily in drugs, it is noted that 51% of bush party attendees and 70% of rave attendees do not use drugs.

They use none of the nine drugs that they were queried on in the survey. Some 1.8% of students in Ontario have used ecstasy.

Raves are not a regular or a dominant recreational activity. Bush parties are much more popular, with twice as many people attending these events. Drinking and driving is prevalent at bush parties, and we all know drinking is responsible for a large number of deaths among young people. In Ontario, nearly 75% of all deaths in the 15 to 19 age category are due to accidental or violent causes. Typically, 30% to 50% of these involve alcohol, not ecstasy. I just want to put some of this in perspective.

There are organizational requirements for hosting a rave party of, say, 1,000 people or more. There's the risk of intervention by the police. This has forced most rave promoters in the Toronto area to lease venues for these functions. This shift to legal space has helped to ensure that raves have become safer over time.

Mel Lastman was quoted in the Toronto Star saying there's no need to ban legal raves: "If we can put these under a controlled atmosphere, maybe they'll be safe." It's no secret that ecstasy, cocaine, crack, marijuana and other drugs are sold at these events, but no one has been killed or seriously injured at a city-sanctioned rave. Underground raves are much more dangerous, and that's the tragic lesson coming out of the inquest into the death of Allan Ho, a Ryerson student who was using ecstasy in a parking garage last year.

By suspending legal raves, we could well be driving kids into places like parking garages and underground warehouses, places that lack the kind of supervision that I feel is required.

The Toronto Star

article which quoted Mayor Lastman also talked about holding raves at smaller, more manageable facilities, increasing police presence at these events, and, most importantly, enforcing strict age limits. Smaller raves would make things safer and more manageable for undercover officers. I also think common sense would tell us that 12-year-olds don't belong at these kinds of events.

Control efforts, in my view, should focus on training security personnel to recognize the paraphernalia and improve search methods to ensure they seriously attempt to keep drugs out. I believe the implementation of harm-reduction strategies is appropriate. It's the right thing to aim for.

Ensuring there is access to water, less humidity, and cooler temperatures within the facility are things that are necessary where these events are held. Some people attending these parties complain of very unsanitary conditions. Testing drugs for purity is also a good idea.

It's unfortunate that some people are drawn to raves only because of the drugs. Just as earlier generations of drug users were attracted to concerts, experienced drug users are attracted to raves. Apparently the environment at raves is friendly. There are fewer fights than in after-hours clubs or bush parties, and a lack of aggression, behaviour normally attributed to the use of alcohol. Handguns and knives are not part of the scene at raves.

Ravers around the world have gained much of their notoriety because of their reported use of illicit drugs. However, some have said the media have painted somewhat of a false picture. The media have romanticized drug use at raves and perhaps encouraged the use. Although ecstacy has received much of the media attention, rave attendees report that the drug of choice at these parties is marijuana. Many of the young people who were questioned regarding raves stated that those who go to the parties only to use drugs are acting inappropriately.

While many people now seem to be clamouring to get on the record calling for a crackdown on raves, they are merely following in the footsteps of the strong leadership already shown on this issue by our minister, Bob Runciman. It was Minister Runciman's initiative to convene a rave summit this year which brought together community partners to explore ways to use existing enforcement options to coordinate a crackdown on illegal drug use.

This is in the spirit of our Blueprint and throne speech commitments to revoke liquor licences or business permits of establishments where it can be shown that drugs are being habitually used or sold. We look forward to the recommendations that will follow from the inquest that has been mentioned today.

As for parents, parents must educate themselves. They must get involved in their children's lives. We cannot be our child's friend; we have to be their parent and understand it's OK to say no. It's also vital to be a role model and be careful not to send a double-standard message.

An all-out ban will not stop raves. It will make the problems associated with them worse by forcing teens underground. I lament the reactionary forces, the media, for sensationalizing this issue. We've been through this issue before with rock concerts, bush parties-just in different time periods and with different drugs of choice.

What is important is that we work for a safer venue. The bill we're discussing today may do something. I appreciate the intention of this bill, but it's important to go beyond this to look at education, information and enforcement.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I want to add to the comments of the member for Broadview-Greenwood that growing up in the 1940s and 1950s wasn't all that bad either, and we had our fun.

I want to make a couple of points today, in the few minutes that I have, in support of the bill of my colleague from Windsor West. She has done a great deal of work in the development of this bill to bring along with it the educational aspect. As was mentioned in her opening remarks, a video has been produced called Dancing in the Dark. She has had a lot of assistance in that. There have been corporate sponsors. Parents and students have been involved in the exercise to bring about this video, that we might all have the opportunity to understand what we're talking about this morning and why we should, I think, support Bill 73.

The video features interviews with undercover police officers and uniformed officers who understand this problem in our community. There are teens in this video who have tried the drug, and we hear about their experience. Educators have given input to this video, as well as the deputy chief coroner of the province. The idea behind this support for the bill is that this video will be taken home, and students and parents will sit down and view the video and talk about the ramifications of these raves that, when combined with the drug ecstasy, can be deadly.

Yes, there is going to be a coroner's inquest into a death from ecstasy at a rave, but there have been 13 deaths in the very recent past. Just yesterday we learned that 170,000 of these ecstasy pills were intercepted at Toronto international airport. They had a street value of $5 million. Notwithstanding what their cost might be, it's the result of the availability of these pills and their use and what it might lead to-so I think the educational part of this has been addressed very well by the member for Windsor West.

As far as the bill itself and some of the regulations, some of the requirements that are in that bill are concerned, I support them. I'm a past municipal councillor, like some others in this Legislature, and I think the municipalities know best those venues in which these types of rave dances can be held.

Mr O'Toole: Allan Rock would legalize marijuana. It reduces stress.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Durham, come to order.

Mr Crozier: The member for Windsor West isn't trying to prevent these raves, isn't trying to tell young people they shouldn't attend them. In fact I think, in co-operation with community officials, they can be even better. The venues can be better chosen. It won't be left up to the cheapest and the most available venue. It'll require that permits be issued where the venue can be supervised, where it can be an appropriate facility for the size of the group there might be, where there might be appropriate washroom facilities, if nothing else, available.

Water was mentioned, because there's a certain amount of exhaustion, I understand, that goes along with these dances, and I think in particular of the safety aspect of the venue itself, the number of exits that are available. I'm not so sure that it's happened here, but we've heard of events going on around the world where people were literally trampled because there was panic due to fire or some other sudden happening. I think municipalities can play a very important role in helping our young people enjoy their young life and the experiences that growing up brings with it.

I don't see anything in this bill that would inhibit the holding of safe, fun raves and I certainly want to support my colleague from Windsor West in bringing this bill forward.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I'm pleased to rise and support my colleague from Windsor West in her bill and to say that I've listened to all of the debate this morning on this matter. I must say again I'm a bit constrained in some of my observations because I don't have children. It's been a while since I was a teenager, obviously, but I was absolutely appalled a few months ago when my colleague Mrs Pupatello came to talk to me about what she'd encountered in Windsor. I knew nothing of raves, and I know in many respects I am naive, but I am absolutely appalled at what I've heard from her and from some others.

Yes, we've all been adolescents, and in my days in the Ottawa Valley it was beer and wine and booze. I want to say that over the course of 25 and 30 years, thanks to some very forward-looking direction and leadership from governments provincial and national, and educational authorities and community groups, we've made some very real progress. Attitudes have changed. I grew up in a community where if you were a 16- or 17-year-old male and you weren't driving around town in the mid-1950s listening to Elvis with a brown stubby as you drove the car, there was something wrong with you. That's changed, and it's changed for the good.

Mrs Pupatello described a snakepit of transparent illegality in Windsor. Listen, we should be damned well concerned: 14- and 15- and 16-year-old kids, middle-class kids, being driven by their unsuspecting parents to the doorstep of these pits where they are ingesting this love hug, bug, or whatever the hell ecstasy is called. I mean, we laugh. We laugh.

We're debating in this House right now Bill 74 about education and about authority and accountability. Can you imagine being a principal or a teacher in a high school in Windsor or Toronto or Ottawa or Hamilton and these 14- and 15- and 16-year-old middle-class, upscale, bright kids have been out loving and hugging with ecstasy for 72 hours, and they show up at the school door at 8:30 on a Monday morning? I'm amazed that the roof is still on the school and the windows are still in place. We are talking about, oftentimes, the bright, upscale, upper-middle-class kids, 15 and 16 and 17.

Ecstasy is one hell of a long way from beer and cheap wine, and we ought to be really concerned about this if any of the stories I hear are true.

We spent a lot of time worrying about squeegee kids, and maybe we should be worried about squeegee kids, but I'm one heck of a lot less worried about squeegee kids than the world that Mrs Pupatello reported from her visit in Windsor a few months ago. I talked to a high school social worker in my area, little old Pembroke. She was describing a situation where one of her kids went off to something in Ottawa a few months ago, and I couldn't believe my ears. I know I'm naive and I know there are no easy answers, but we'd better understand, folks, that this is a very serious disintegration of the social foundation of this community, if it's fairly reported.

I see my friend from Riverdale saying, you know, "Oh, he's overstating it." Well, maybe I am. I observe this: We lost the battle with tobacco and young kids. Somehow in the last 15 years we've lost the battle with tobacco. I've walked the same walks at the University of Toronto for 25 years, and you know what I've noticed? In the last five years, all those bright kids going to Vic and St Mike's are smoking, the young girls much more than the young guys. I am really disturbed that we've lost that battle with tobacco.

We know that we are watching the creation of an epidemic of lung cancer and heart disease five and 10 and 15 years down the road. We've lost that fight with those young kids, the best and brightest across the way at the U of T.

Now I'm told by people like Mrs Pupatello, "Well, you should come to Windsor, or go to Hamilton, or go to Toronto, and see what's going on": 14- and 15- and 16-year-old kids, many of them very bright, upscale, middle-class kids, being driven by their naive parents to the doorstep of these illegal snakepits to spend hours and days hooked on this thing called ecstasy. Let me tell you, we ought to be worried, and as a minimum we ought to be passing Mrs Pupatello's bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Windsor West has two minutes to reply.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you so much. I appreciate all the comments that we heard today. It enforces for me personally that apparently for some of the members I look a lot older than I am. I haven't hit middle age yet, but I can tell you that it is easy to say, "Let kids have fun." It is hard to bring forward an issue that is controversial that the current largest city in the nation has decided to ban: raves. That in my view is stupid. That is not the answer.

What is difficult is for the Legislature to stand up momentarily and vote in favour of the bill so that we can move the bill to committee, where we can determine that it has an appropriate definition of a rave, where we can determine what regulations have to attend the bill so that municipalities will set the right conditions in order to host a rave. Because what I have said clearly is that we cannot ban raves. We cannot allow kids to not have a place to go, because their intent is always to go, dance all night. I've danced all night.

I am not a stodgy, grumpy old politician coming in this House saying, "Kids can't have fun." I'll try to rival my stories with the NDP caucus members. I don't think I'll win. However, I am telling you that it is easy to sit back and say, "We're making a big deal about this." What I have seen with my eyes, as has been illustrated by other members of this House, is something that parents must be concerned about. The parents in my riding of Windsor West have been surprised to know things they just didn't know.

If anything, in my riding we have come to a higher level of awareness about the drug ecstasy, the date rape drug, why kids are using pacifiers-because the drugs make you clench your teeth. I beg you, vote in favour of this bill. We need to have this bill at committee.

TEACHER TESTING

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I move that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,

(

a) believes that the quality of Ontario's teachers is vital to the quality of our education system and the future of our children;

(

b) recognizes that in a rapidly changing world, teachers need to keep their skills, training and knowledge up to date;

(

c) supports a mandatory program of regular testing and recertification for all teachers throughout their careers.

On behalf of my constituents in Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, I'm pleased to be able to begin the debate on the issue of testing for Ontario's teachers. Quality education depends entirely upon quality teaching. It is a fact that no amount of technology or textbooks or computers can match the importance of a skilled and knowledgeable teacher, yet we must ensure that our educators' skills and knowledge are always kept up to date to deal with our rapidly changing world.

In the last election, Premier Mike Harris committed to the people of Ontario that he would institute teacher testing as part of his plan for quality education. I was very happy to run on that platform, and I see it as a contract with the people of Ontario, one that they voted for, and the government is bound to keep that promise.

We all know that the vast majority of Ontario's teachers are among the best in the world in their profession. Most Ontarians can remember teachers who opened up new worlds of discovery and learning in front of their eyes. Our teachers taught us the skills that let us move forward in our lives. Teachers prepared us for university or college; they prepared us for the working world; they gave us the level of knowledge needed to become good citizens; they reinforced the values taught to us by our parents and our families.

Nothing can replace teachers who are committed to their jobs and who care that the students they teach are learning to the best of their abilities. I'm certain that everyone here is committed to ensuring that the best teachers in our schools are supported and that all teachers raise their skills and knowledge to the highest level. We owe it to our children and to future generations to do no less.

Parents in my riding have told me they are concerned about how we can keep up with the ever-increasing technology available in our society. In many cases, our own children seem to have a better grasp of computers and the Internet than we do. Teachers, as well, must be able to respond to students who may be more technologically advanced than they are. Technology, however, is only one component of the challenge we face.

During the last five years, the Mike Harris government has made a number of vital changes to improve quality education across the province: standardized testing for students and standard report cards that parents can actually read and understand; a clear funding formula based on enrolment and students' needs, which has defined, increased and protected classroom spending.

We have strengthened the focus on learning through curriculum changes and established school councils to increase parental involvement in their children's learning. Testing teachers is simply a complement to these other reforms, to provide quality assurance at another level. Ontario's teaching profession must have the most up-to-date knowledge, skills and training.

Quality in education is not something that should be determined from the top down. It has to come from the parents of each child in Ontario's schools. The only satisfactory measure of a successful system is what a student has learned and how able they are to succeed in the world. Testing teachers will not give us this answer, but it will increase the likelihood of success from the very beginning.

Testing should encompass both new teachers entering the profession and those who have been teaching for a number of years. A high level of ability and knowledge must be a prerequisite to become a teacher, but it isn't enough just to test to become a teacher. We must maintain the highest standards for teachers all the way through the system.

A teacher who cannot meet high standards of quality should not be teaching children. A child's education is more important than any individual's job, teachers' union contract or school board plan. Parents should feel confident that when they send their children off to school, they're getting the best education in the world. Anything less is unacceptable.

Testing must be done in such a way that all concerned have confidence in the results. We need to know that all areas in Ontario are benefiting from the same high standards of quality. Government, parents and teachers must establish performance standards with only the interests of students in mind. Collective agreements and bureaucratic policies must not be allowed to interfere.

Teacher testing is not a concept that is restricted to Ontario or even to the teaching profession. People in many different occupations today have a variety of entry requirements, standards for professional development, ongoing assessment and accountability practices. Expectations for quality and excellence have to be met in all kinds of private sector jobs, as well as those in professions, such as law and medicine.

The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, for example, has a peer assessment program that all doctors practising in Ontario must participate in every five to 10 years. The Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario requires dentists to complete a mandatory program of professional development over a three-year period.

I would say that quality in education is more important than in any other profession, matched only by the importance of quality in the medical profession.

Teachers in other countries are also being challenged to continually update their skills and knowledge. A majority of US states, for example, currently require professional development for certificate renewal. Countries such as Australia, England, France, New Zealand and the United States are focusing assessment programs both on new and established teachers. Across Canada, a number of provinces are also addressing the issue of quality teaching.

Quality in education must be a joint goal for parents, teachers, school boards and governments. I call on all of those partners to work towards quality at every level. Testing is a vital part of this plan. We can see the results in the marks our kids get and the tests that students take. This tells us how we're doing at the end of the process. Teacher testing just lets us know more about the beginning of the process.

Since quality education is a direct result of the quality of our teachers, we need to have the best, brightest and most skilled and knowledgeable teachers all the way through the process. So I put this resolution forward and I expect, naturally, that everybody in the chamber will accept that and support it. Thank you.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I do stand in the chamber today, but not to support the resolution. I have very great concern about the resolution. I believe that the quality of Ontario's teachers is vital to the quality of our education system-I would never question that-but in no way would I ever support a mandatory program for teacher testing. Ontario Liberals want the best education for our students. That means the best teachers. But I don't believe this government has a plan to support teachers-only to bash them.

Those aren't only my words. I have a quote from an editorial in the Kingston Whig-Standard. It opens with, "If Ontario teachers were baby seals, Brigitte Bardot would have stepped in a long time ago to stop the clubbing by the Harris government." That's the way teacher tests are being viewed across the province.

I am the mother of four children, all students in the education system. I have been a school board trustee and chair of the school board, so I've had some regular contact with teachers over recent years. I know the quality of Ontario teachers first-hand. I know it because I've hired them, I've promoted them, I've negotiated with them, and I've always respected them. I have never questioned their commitment to our children.

When I think of my children and their achievements at school and the fine teachers they have had, if I were asked to describe what really makes a fine teacher, I think of the commitment of the teacher, the enthusiasm that teacher brings to the students in the classroom, the caring the teacher has for the children they see every day.

You can't test for those things, but you can kill those things within a teacher. Teachers can come to a school community fresh and bright and full of commitment and caring and enthusiasm, but when their professional abilities are continually questioned, to the point where they are required to be tested by the government, where they are not treated as professionals-the member who presented the resolution this morning talked about the dentists and their professional college that sets standards that dentists must meet every five years.

I would just point out to the member that it's their professional college that has set these standards, not the government. This government is not treating teachers like professionals. You are not allowing their college to set the standards for them. You're treating them like employees. How unfortunate it is, because they truly are professionals with regard to ensuring that teachers are up to date in what's current in education.

In my experience as a school board trustee and chair, we used to have professional activity days, and it was the responsibility of school boards to ensure that new educational initiatives were the topic of professional activity days. But this government has changed that. They've removed that opportunity for teachers to come together collectively as professionals to benefit from those opportunities for professional development. Now, when you've taken that away, you tell them that's what you expect of them, which in my opinion is a great contra diction.

You have a cabinet document that clearly shows that the government is knowingly undermining the College of Teachers' authority to regulate teachers. What is the purpose of the College of Teachers if it is not to address the professionalism of their members?

I have a fact sheet from the Ontario government with reaction to the new Ontario teacher testing. I was very disturbed when I read Cathy Cove, from Parent Network Ontario, who indicates:

"Evaluation benefits all partners in the education system. The traditional teacher evaluation process was not linked to student achievement. This new teacher testing program is a first and crucial step towards just that."

So am I to understand that it is the intention of this government, in introducing teacher testing, that their performance will be evaluated based on the success of their students? How totally inappropriate. How very little you know about the job of teachers and what makes a good one.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate of the resolution put forth by the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, Raminder Gill-a very exceptional member, I may add. His resolution is basically this: He believes that the quality of Ontario's teachers is vital to the quality of our education system, that there are changes that teachers need to keep up with, with their skills, training and knowledge, and he supports a mandatory program of regular testing and recertification of all teachers throughout their careers.

What the ministry is trying to do, and in my role as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, is set out a framework with respect to quality education, a framework for a comprehensive Ontario teacher testing program. There will be a plan of support. There obviously will be a model developed. But we wanted to set out what our expectations are so that we could stop any fearmongering that would be put forth by the opposition parties and deal with bashing of what they're talking about in terms of our educators. Quite frankly, I don't think they get it. The public wants standards with respect to education.

The program with respect to teacher testing has three key elements: First, beginning next fall, all teachers will have to be recertified every five years to show that they're up to date in their knowledge and skills. To be recertified, teachers will have to successfully complete a number of required courses, including written tests and other assessments.

Second, in the year 2001, all new teachers will have to pass a test before they can qualify to teach in Ontario. This will ensure they know the subjects they will be teaching. We'll also be introducing an induction program similar to an internship that will help new teachers develop good classroom management and teaching skills through coaching and support from more experienced colleagues. I can tell you that's something that is very positive. We do that in the legal profession, which I have been a part of.

Before you enter the profession, you certainly are put through testing and you are made to show that you can practise the profession of law; that induction program has served the legal profession well. I think it will serve the teaching profession well.

Third, by next fall we will establish new province-wide standards to ensure that all teachers are evaluated in the same consistent way across the province, because quite frankly that is not happening. That is something that I think parents expect and school boards will welcome with respect to setting standards in that area.

So I can say that in terms of curriculum, parents expect and students need to have their teachers up to date with their curriculum. How can you assess that unless there are assessments, there are standards and there are practical examinations with respect to whether they're up to date with the curriculum they're expected to teach? And if they're expected to move into additional qualified courses, one would expect that they would be able to teach in those courses after having been assessed and having passed a test to be able to move up to the next level.

That's something you expect in other professions, certainly if you're going to become more of a specialist or if you're going to be able to teach in another area or you're going to be able to advise and care for people in other areas. In the legal profession, if you wanted to be known as a specialist, you have to be assessed by your peers and you certainly have to have the experience to be able to move up to that level of what people expect.

This is not something that is not happening in other areas of the world. In the United Kingdom this is an area they have focused on as important, as a priority with respect to making sure their teachers are up to standard. Because if they're not, obviously because of the important role they play, our education level is not going to be up to standard and our students will suffer. That is something very important with respect to what we're trying to accomplish.

In closing, I don't accept what we've heard from the members opposite with respect to teacher testing, because we've set out a framework. We will work with the stakeholders in consultation as we put this together. There will be an approach. We've set out the steps of implementation, we've set up the approach in the three areas that we're looking for in terms of recertification of teachers, with respect to standards for all school boards in assessing teachers, and new teachers having to pass tests and an induction program before they get into the classroom. I think it all makes common sense.

I think it will all come together. Because what we're trying to achieve here is excellence in our education system and move beyond the rhetoric that we hear from the other side, the rhetoric we hear from the big unions, and deal with quality in education.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Back when I first graduated from university, I worked in a construction camp and I realized very quickly that one of the social behaviours that happens in the construction camp, and I would suggest in life, is that we picked out a scapegoat. There was someone in the camp who, no matter what they did, it was wrong. The rest of us were all united against this one particular individual, and when that individual left the construction field, we picked a new one. This government has picked teachers. Anything that's gone wrong in this province has been because of the teachers.

Whether it be acid rain or global warming, somehow teachers are behind it and we need to get down to it.

We're now going to look at a testing method that will clearly define in some neat little formula-because the approach from this government is that everything is a neat little formula that we can fit people into and that way we can tell if they're a good teacher or not. I would suggest to you that with this neat little formula, Picasso would probably not be qualified to teach art in our system. We need to recognize that much of teaching is an art rather than a science and that it is a reflection of a teacher's ability to inspire, to turn people on to education, to make them interested in learning-not necessarily just the curriculum but to develop the love of learning.

I don't think we have a system in Ontario that we should be ashamed of. I had the pleasure, about a year and a half ago, of acting as a tour guide for a group of educators from Japan who were going around the province. I said to them: "Why are you looking at Ontario? We keep hearing through the media and through government ads that the other systems are better and Japan is the leading expert in education."

They said: "No, we're in dire straits in education. We need to see how you're doing it because we believe you're on the right track. Certainly," they said, "our test scores are higher, but we test only the top 10%. When we compare our top 10% with your top 10%, you're ahead of us. You test everyone. We test the top 10%."

I will not dispute that there are bad teachers-there is bad everything-but I think the majority of teachers are good. How do we decipher who is good and who is not? One of the best systems in the world has been parents. Parents are extremely responsive when they believe their child is not getting the education they should. In a local community, the parents then have the opportunity to talk to a school board, somebody they will see in the grocery store, someone they see on the street and convey it. There are teachers each and every year who leave the profession, but we're watching at the same time that the powers of school boards for them to work with are being stripped.

I have no question that teachers require to be assessed. I would suggest that's happening now. When we hear about doctors and lawyers being assessed, I would note they're being assessed by their peers. This is radically different in that we're not recognizing the peer ability now through the principal, through colleagues, through a school board, to assess a teacher and respond directly to the parents.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have taught at the university, community college and high school levels. In every case, I was teaching in a system based on testing, a system that relied on testing to evaluate students to ensure they're receiving quality training and education. Regular testing was very important to monitor the skills and knowledge of my students, and regular testing is very important to ensure that our teachers are up to date in their profession.

Testing teachers may be a new initiative in Canada, but in other jurisdictions it's the norm, not the exception. Last year, when our government proposed teaching testing, I found that 23 US states test new teachers entering their school systems. In Texas and Pennsylvania, all new teachers will be required to renew their certification every five years through continuing education. In North Carolina, an existing teacher may be asked to do a recertification test if he or she has been identified as a poor performer in a poor-performing school.

Last year, we promised to implement a system of teacher testing in Ontario. Parents and students told us it was a good idea then, and a recent Angus Reid poll confirmed that 71% of people think teacher testing is a good idea now. Our plan will put these ideas, supported by both parents and students, into action.

I see in the Toronto Star there's support from others at the federal level: "Tom Long says he would like to take the Mike Harris education agenda-including teacher testing and obligatory extracurricular time-nationwide," not by spending money but through persuasion. Preston Manning as well has said that "a government led by him would always look to the provinces for fresh ideas.

"`There is need for education reform,' said Mr Manning."

Just to wrap up, we've come a long way in education since 1995. We have a new fair funding formula, steps to ensure that teachers spend more time in the classroom, a rigorous new curriculum, standardized report cards and increased parental involvement in education, but there's still much more to do.

For too long, education in this province has been focused on what is put into the system rather than what students are getting out. There has not been enough focus on results.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There's a letter which I think best exemplifies what this bill is all about. It's to the Minister of Education from an individual who is a supervisor:

"Please be advised that upon the day Bill 74, the Education Accountability Act, 2000, receives royal assent, I intend to resign as supervisory officer of the Connell and Ponsford District School Area Board in the township of Pickle Lake, Ontario.

"I've been an educator since 1960, as a teacher, curriculum coordinator, principal, superintendent and director of education. I have been appalled at the indignities your government has cumulatively heaped upon education since 1995. I can, however, tolerate it no longer. I cannot, in good conscience, supervise the implementation of such a draconian piece of legislation as Bill 74."

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: Quit using up my time.

Mr Tascona: On a point of order, Speaker: The member is not speaking to the resolution. Can you-

Mr Bradley: I am speaking to the resolution.

Mr Tascona: He's not speaking to it at all. He's speaking to Bill 74.

Mr Bradley: That's a waste of time.

Mr Tascona: He's not speaking to the resolution in front of the House. He's wasting the House's time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): That is not a point of order.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know the member wants to use up my time because what I'm saying is searing the government on this particular issue.

This person, I think, is absolutely right. He says:

"History has given us a name for regimes where it is the practice to establish enforcers, demand reports, encourage covert reporting from the disgruntled or vindictive citizenry and punish those who do not abide by their rules: totalitarianism. Each of these features is present in Bill 74," which corresponds to what the member, in his resolution, wishes.

"As enforcers, elected boards of education are compelled to create enforcement plans and these must report to you. Of course, you have reserved the right to micro-manage or reject their plans. This is bad management. It is management without consultation or negotiation. It makes management subject to an arbitrary external authority that knows nothing of local conditions or demands.

He eventually says that as a long-time educator and supporter of the school system-here is an individual who is going to resign because of the kind of content that we find in the member's resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate. The Chair recognizes the member for Trinity-Spadina.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Thank you, Speaker. It's getting easier, eh?

I just want to speak forcefully against this resolution. I did so last night and the day before and I'm going to do it again. Speaker, have you seen this resolution before? Doesn't this resolution seem like overkill? As if the minister hasn't already dealt with this issue, we need a backbencher now to present it again under the guise of a resolution?

Mr Tascona: He's PA to the Minister of Labour.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): That's right. He makes an extra $12,000. Instead of only $78,000, he makes $90,000. And he wants a salary increase.

Mr Marchese: Is that on the record?

So, this resolution: The minister talked about this just last week. What does this resolution say? "Believes that the quality of Ontario's teachers is vital to the quality of our education system ... recognizes that in a rapidly changing world, teachers need" to keep up with their skills.

Let me review this one at a time. First: "believes that the quality of Ontario teachers is vital ...." Who disagrees with that? But what's underlying that comment? What's the underlying politics? That teachers are incompetent. Is there any evidence to show that somehow the quality of teacher competence has gone down? There is none. There isn't any, except that this government says: "Oh no, quality is a problem. It's a serious crisis and we've got to fix it. And you know what? We need change."

Speaker, you're familiar with that because you're part of their caucus. "We need change." What kind of change? "It's irrelevant. Let us worry about the changes that need to be made, but change must be made because the quality of education is down." So we need to fix the crisis-orchestrated, abetted by the Tories.

Mr Snobelen started it when he said, "We need to create a crisis in education," and successfully it has been pursued very craftily by the other ministers, where each and every way, along every road we have a crisis created by the government that needs to be fixed by the government in order to get re-elected again.

Please, that's the political game. I know the game, except that the poor public watching this doesn't know the game. It's a serious political game for you guys. You are the most capable manipulators I have ever seen. I give you high grades for that. It's just that the public doesn't know. You've gone after teachers the way you went after welfare recipients. You have literally made teachers equivalent to welfare recipients, and I know my good buddy M. Baird, the minister, understands this very well.

If you do polling, what does polling reveal? It reveals that teachers are potential victims who can be victimized like welfare recipients. That's why you have Mr Baird, the minister, from time to time-every couple of months-going after welfare: just to remind the good public of Ontario that the system of welfare needs to be fixed on an ongoing basis. These guys have done the same with the educational system. They started with boards of education. They started with bureaucracy.

You understand that term "bureaucracy." It exists somewhere but, "We've got to chop it down because we could save billions in order to deal with the deficit." If we could only cut into the Tory bureaucracy, good God, we'd save billions indeed. No problem there; the problem is somewhere else.

We've got big government for everyone except the corporate sector; smaller government for the corporations by giving my money to them and big government for teachers because we need to fix the crisis, big government for welfare because we need to fix the crisis, big government for squeegee kids-poor squeegee kids. I can't help-bringing those poor squeegee kids back to-these people needed to clean the crime off our streets, the riffraff, the lowest of the low, the scum of the earth. We needed to clean them off with a bill-squeegee kids cleaning windows, making a poor couple of bucks to make ends meet. But not for these Tories.

We needed a bill to get tough on law and order. So we got tough government, big government for squeegee kids, for teachers, for welfare, for municipal government. And we have less government for whom, Speaker? You know, because you're in their caucus. For the corporations, for the money-makers, the guys who sit in front of the computers. The guys who sit in front of the computers say: "Oh, here's a couple of thousand I can make today, a quick buck. Good God, I can make $10,000 today. Good God, $20,000 tomorrow." These are the new millionaires we've had in the last 10 years, but they existed before.

These guys want to give them a tax break. Up to $100,000 they don't have to pay a cent. The money-makers, the paper-pushers, the paper economy people, the ones who don't need my money-these people say, "Yes, they deserve money from the taxpayer."

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: Less government for the taxpayer, more government for the teachers. Why? Oh, listen up. Come on, it's all connected. I'm connecting it for you. And you've got more government for the beleaguered teachers. You're taking the entrails out of the educational system, out of teachers, ripping them right out. Why? Because 50% of your public believes that doing that is good. And it feels good here viscerally; right here it feels good. You guys are good, very good. Our only hope is that part of that 50% of the population that supports this political, manipulative process catches up to it.

The Deputy Speaker: I don't think you want to use that word "manipulative" very often. I also want to remind the member that when I'm in this chair, I'm in nobody's caucus.

Mr Marchese: Speaker, did you say that "manipulative" is unacceptable to you? Is that what you said? I might as well just sit down and leave. We don't even have hearings any more because this government, in all its wisdom, says: "We don't need hearings any more. We can have one afternoon to deal with it." New Democrats had four weeks of hearings on almost every bill; these people have one day of hearings on every bill, and then you come to me say "manipulative" is unacceptable in here. Come on. Please, Speaker.

Honest to God, they're taking every little word that has any substance, any spice, and they're saying, "Oh, it's not good." What kind of words do you want me to use for them? Words that little children can understand? That's what I'm trying to do. You need peppery words to reach them-peppery, spicy, vinegary. You need that kind of stuff, right? How else do you reach Tories except through that acidic kind of flavour of the word? Please don't neutralize or sanitize what I am trying to say.

The poor teachers, the next victims after the welfare recipients-I don't know who's left out there that these people haven't picked on, but it's getting bad. I heard the previous speaker talk about teacher testing. I don't know where he got his notes from. There is not one test that I am aware of or any research that we have done or that other people have done, including the College of Teachers, that shows a test has been implemented that is effective or useful. It's a wacky idea. Is that acceptable to you? It's wacko. It's nuts. It's stupid, and your minister and your government know it.

Mr Kormos: And it's manipulative.

Mr Marchese: Of course it manipulates the public's understanding or lack of understanding of the issue. That's what it's all about. That's why Tom Long is jumping on the bandwagon. He's saying: "Oh, I think Mike Harris has got a good one here. Let's test the teachers nationally." It's a stupid idea. Even the minister knows and admits as much. What the minister has now accomplished simultaneously is this: For the supporters who want teacher testing, she says, "Oh, yes, we did do it." For those who oppose teacher testing, she says, in response to the Liberal critic: "No, you haven't read the bill.

It's not about that. Maybe there is a little bit of that, but it's about so much else." Simultaneously, this minister has been able to accomplish two things: (1) "Yes, we're testing"; (2) "No, we're not testing," and has it both ways. You guys are really good. You guys cut and the poor public doesn't know whether you're cutting or not.

Someone called in at the Mike Coren show last night while Peter Kormos, my buddy, was there, and this caller said: "By the way, the opposition says the government is cutting. The government says, `No, we're not.'" The poor guy is saying, "Who is telling the truth?" He doesn't know.

Mr Kormos: I explained.

Mr Marchese: Peter explained. For those who watch the program, he explained, and it was a good answer. But you can't say these things: Who's telling the truth, who's not telling the truth? My answer is, go to the schools yourself; see and hear the stories.

Fundraising in the Catholic and public systems: Have you ever seen more fundraising for essential things than ever before? Have you ever seen it? People are fund raising for textbooks and computers. They're fundraising for essential things.

Mr Kormos: Bake sales.

Mr Marchese: Bake sales. That's what they used to do just for a couple of things, for some excursion or other, but now they're fundraising for essentials in a good economy, and they give $1 billion away. Can you imagine what $1 billion could do? Think of it. Open up the mind. Can you imagine what $1 billion could do? They gave it away, the $1-billion boondoggle. That's what it's all about, giving it away. Yet they're forcing poor parents of modest means to raise money. The rich ones won't have any problem raising their $100,000. Poor people have now got to fundraise for essential stuff, basic stuff.

Those kids up there know what it's about. You just have to go ask them. Don't come and ask me and believe me. Ask those students up there. You have squeezed education. You have taken the entrails out of the educational system. Think of it. Can you see it, Peter? The entrails ripped right out.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: Quality, my foot. Every time you good taxpayer citizen of Ontario hear of quality, that they're fixing the system, that we need change, you've got a problem. Every time they say quality, think the opposite: They're destroying the system. Every time they question the competency of the teachers, question their motives. Question the political motivation behind it.

Look, Harris doesn't hate teachers; neither does Ecker. Harris was a teacher before.

Mr Kormos: Really?

Mr Marchese: Yes, he was.

Mr Kormos: For how long?

Mr Marchese: Irrelevant. But it's not because he hates them, or he didn't have a good experience or had a good experience, or was a good teacher or a bad teacher; I don't think it's got anything to do with that. Do you know what it's got to do with? There's a political constituency out there that says: "If you whack teachers good, we're behind you because, you know what?

They're overpaid and underworked and they're not competent, so if you go fix that, we're with you, Mike." And Mike, as a good leader, is perpetrating that mythology as a way of keeping those constituencies by his side, not because he hates teachers but because it's good to go after them. They're victims, like welfare recipients.

Mr Kormos: Very manipulative.

Mr Marchese: Manipulative. Political manipulation. Good people, good politics, smart. Whacko, but smart. They don't worry about the consequences; they don't worry about the effect of bad policy. They don't worry about that, because they'll just pass another bill to fix an incompetency of theirs previously instituted. "No problem; just pass another bill and we'll correct it." I've never seen a more incompetent government in that regard. You just fix problems by introducing new bills every other day, and then you don't have hearings, you just skip over here, because the good public doesn't need to know.

They're busy working. They don't have to come to Queen's Park and be troubled by all that minutiae. Let M me Ecker worry about the minutiae. Change is needed? "We'll fix it." Quality is a problem? "We'll fix it." We have a crisis in education? Mr Snobelen said, "We'll fix that." That's how they get elected. They're good.

"Supports a mandatory program of regular testing"-this minister said, oh no, it's not the kind of testing this member is proposing, yet they're introducing that kind of bill again, mandatory testing. The minister denies that she's doing it. This member is presenting it again, as he did a year ago under their 1995 electioneering plan. His minister is denying they're doing it. He's saying: "That's OK. Reannounce it again, because the good public needs to know we are testing teachers. We're going to help M.

Tom Long with his campaign as he nationally tours Canada and says: `We need a national test to test teachers, because they're incompetent. Elect me, Tom Long. We'll fix that, because there's a crisis out there.'"

I appreciate your attention.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I just wanted to take a minute and compliment the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, Raminder Gill, on his resolution. He is a very professional person himself, I think a professional engineer. There is testing and certification and upgrades in all professions, whether it's dentistry, medicine, law. I think the intention of the resolution is to really respectfully make sure the profession-and I do refer to it as a profession-is upgraded.

The minister spoke the other day. I've listened to constituents, and 71% or 74% in some polls, by the province and others, have recognized that testing of teachers is extremely important. It's more or less an appraisal system, an evaluation, a performance review. The NDP's Royal Commission on Learning also recommended in some respects that testing and review of teachers is an important part of the profession's growth and development. Parents have told us we need to provide more direction to Ontario's publicly funded school system to ensure that students come first. They want school boards to be accountable for the delivery and benefits of Ontario's education reforms to children.

From the beginning, our education reform agenda has aimed to ensure that Ontario's students have access to the best-quality education system. After all, it is all about students in the classroom. For too long, we've neglected the essential point of the whole issue. The key elements of education reform, many of them stemming from the Royal Commission on Learning, which came from the NDP government, are about a fairly funded system, more resources in the classroom, a new, more rigorous curriculum, regular testing to show how our students are progressing, standard report cards so parents can understand the results.

The investments are all in quality, initiatives such as the code of conduct to make sure that disruptive behaviour and disruptions in our schools and threats to safety just aren't acceptable any longer. Teacher testing is simply a part of making sure we have the best-quality educational system not just in Ontario but indeed in the world.

In my view, most of the teachers won't have any problem at all with this system that's been proposed. The key recommendations from the College of Teachers: refine the policies; a written assessment of knowledge related to the new curriculum; a two-year introduction program for core components defined by the college; a return-to-practice program for teachers returning to the school system following a break; a requirement that teachers develop professional growth plans so that they learn computers and Internet and where the new resources are.

I think that generally, once you get by the politics of this, all we want to do is enhance and improve the quality of education in Ontario. Who could disagree with that? The parents demand it. The government is responding. The politics is all in the union part of it.

I'm going to share my time with the member-yes, thank you.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): It is interesting to be here in private members' hour with a new member of the House to whom we extend the greatest of respect. However, whether it is by inference or simply by direction, there is a connection between what has been presented today ostensibly as this private member's opinion for our deliberation and the government's actions last week-in fact, the government's actions in the election last year, where it said to all of Ontario, "We will find you a test for teachers." They said recertification exams.

We stand here today then not talking about an idle concept that someone has brought to us but rather the government's promise of the day during the election to the public: "We will find you a test that will tell you whether the teachers are good or not." Instead, in the cabinet document, in the very core of this government's consideration of this issue, there is no teacher test.

So we're in a funny position today. We're being asked by the members we heard commenting opposite to approve something we know can't be done. We know there is not a test. It's a false pass and a false promise to be able to put forward from this august assembly that somehow the teachers of this province can be submitted to regular testing, because that's what in this resolution. The very cabinet document that enabled the announcement from the minister of this government last week proved differently.

Just as the College of Teachers, just as the state of New York, just as a variety of authorities around the world have said, you can only be irresponsible, you can only be disrespectful of the teaching profession, if you submit and subscribe to the idea that a test is going to tell you whether or not the people standing in front of the children with one of the biggest trusts that we accord to any member of society can be tested.

So why then do we have before us this resolution today? Why do we have the members of the Conservative government in here today apparently supporting an idea that can't be done? Why would a backbencher put forward for us in this assembly a patently impossible task of teacher testing? It is frankly because of the propaganda that this government is exercising.

And willingly or not-and again we extend the benefit of the doubt to the member who brings us this today-the people who would support this resolution fall into that category of misleading and propagandizing an agenda which does not bring good repute to this House. This House, and this hour in particular, is only advanced when we in good faith bring forward the things we actually can do.

I say to the member opposite, if you look at the cabinet material-if you don't have a copy I'm happy to provide it to you-you will see that in that cabinet material there is not a teacher test. Further, it is very important to understand that this government is cutting $1.6 billion from its share of education funding. Therein lies the real motivation. This government, far from protecting children, far from making sure that governments are providing enough funds, that teachers have the resources-in fact, $1.6 billion is being removed from this government's share of funding, a terrible legacy.

In fact, today the bill this resolution is linked to says, "Spend $15 million chasing down teachers but spend no money improving teaching or learning in this province." Shame on all of you.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I stand here supporting this resolution and I stand here supporting the policy of this government for more than just one reason, that it's something that's been put forward by this government. I'm the husband of a dedicated teacher for over 26 years. I spent 12 years in a classroom personally and I have diplomas from all levels of education, elementary, secondary school, community college and a degree from the university level. I have had great teachers and I can tell you that I have had teachers who were the absolute pits.

I must remind everyone that this is what Dave Cooke said on TV last week: Teacher testing is a phrase that is used in an election campaign; the proper process is an evaluation. And that's exactly what it is.

Mr Kennedy: This is an abuse of the Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: I will not warn the member from High Park again.

Mr Spina: It's an evaluation taking into account all of the wonderful skills and talents that a teacher brings forward to the classroom in a way that they can best deliver it for good, quality students so that we have the best system in this country, the best system in the world. If you have qualified people teaching, you'll have an excellent product that comes out of the system.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale has two minutes.

Mr Gill: It is my pleasure to wrap up this debate today and I would like to thank all the members who took part. All the members in this House remember June 3 last year. We went to the people. Before that we had a platform called Blueprint. As we went door to door, people told us, "Your government has done exactly what they said they were going to do." Even people who opposed us told us that. This is just a commitment that we are fulfilling for the people of Ontario. We said it in black and white. I have a copy of the Blueprint here. I'm going to read it very briefly and this is on page 41:

"The quality of a child's teacher can make or break that child's education. We have excellent teachers in Ontario but the world is changing rapidly and we've got to make sure all teachers are keeping up. They must have the up-to-date skills, training and knowledge to put our students at the top."

When we go to a doctor for ourselves, for our families, we want to make sure they're the best in their profession, and it's only fair to demand and ask and ensure that the teachers we send our children to, especially the secondary and primary school teachers, where the children's foundation of education is going to start, are of the highest standards.

RAVES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES RAVES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We'll deal first with ballot item number 25. Mrs Pupatello has moved second reading of Bill 73. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

May I see those standing again? I declare the motion carried.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I move that the bill be referred to the justice and social policy committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the pleasure of the House the motion carry? It is carried.

TEACHER TESTING

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 26.

Mr Gill has moved notice of motion number 12.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; there will be up to a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. If there are two of us standing, one of us is out of order, and it's not me.

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Klees, Frank

Mazzilli, Frank

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wood, Bob

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: It's late in the morning. I must remind you that my temper is getting short. I don't know, maybe it's the time of day or something, but I'm downright out of sorts. Let me remind you that I have absolutely no desire to throw anybody out, but that is my first instinct. You are here in the company of a group of students and you are not showing them the type of leadership they should expect of you. I would ask that you refrain from commenting. I would exhort you to go ahead and vote the way you would like to.

Mr Gill has moved a resolution. Those opposed will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 19; the nays are 29.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

The business of this morning has ended. We stand adjourned until 1:30 o'clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Sarnia-Lambton is known for its large petrochemical industry. Fibreglass, Holmes Foundry, Owens-Corning and many of the other industries shut down a number of years ago.

The community has paid a high price for the economic prosperity of the past. The price paid? People who have died from occupational disease and the growing number of people who have contracted fatal diseases from the workplace.

For years, grassroots advocates have attempted to raise awareness of this issue to governments, as early as the 1980s and all through the 1990s. Every government has failed to address this horrible legacy.

The city of Sarnia recognizes also that it can't run away from these issues, and a monument is being erected on the waterfront as testimony to lives lost from disease because of the lack of safety standards of the past.

Occupational disease is not a partisan issue. It is in that spirit of actually working co-operatively to resolve many of these issues that I invited Minister Stockwell to come to Sarnia-Lambton in January to meet with the community on this matter. We both agreed that we must learn from the mistakes of the past, that we must work together to truly resolve the horrible consequences of occupational disease in a responsible and compassionate manner.

AGRICULTURAL TRADE SHOW

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to encourage everyone to start the season right by coming to Northumberland this Victoria Day Weekend and attend RAV ON.

RAV ON stands for Rural Agri Ventures Ontario, which is a unique agri-venture trade show organized by the Campbellford-Seymour Agricultural Society. This unique showcase begins tomorrow in Campbellford and concludes on Saturday.

RAV ON was established to give anyone who is involved in new, innovative, alternative or diversified agribusinesses an opportunity to display their products and their ideas. It also will provide visitors with an opportunity to meet and greet owners of successful agribusinesses and seek advice on how to start up their own agri-venture.

According to the show's director, Mr Don Frise, there will be a wide range of alternative agribusinesses featured. These will likely include emu, ostrich and buffalo farming; organic and herbal gardening; and farm vacation operations such as bed and breakfasts.

This kind of showcase not only brings our attention to new and innovative ideas in agriculture, it also provides opportunities for these innovative ideas to emerge and develop into new business opportunities.

I commend Mr Don Frise and the Campbellford Seymour Agriculture Society for their hard work and dedication in organizing this trade show. I encourage everyone to join both myself, and many others, at the RAV ON trade show this weekend in Campbellford.

EVENTS IN CORNWALL

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I am pleased to rise today to invite all members to my riding over the summer months to enjoy and participate in the festivities during l'Écho francophone and Worldfest 2000.

Every year francophones gather together in the community to celebrate their heritage and achievements. This year the celebration will be held from June 1 to 4, and the kickoff will include a wine and cheese reception where francophones will be honoured for their many achievements in the Francophone Hall of Fame. The rest of the week will see sporting events, dances and community brunches to celebrate the French culture.

Franco-Ontarians are a strong and proud group in my riding, and I am happy to be able to congratulate them and hope they have a successful celebration.

I also would like to highlight the 16th annual Worldfest, taking place July 4 to 8. Worldfest 2000 is a showcase of music, dance and cultural diversity reflecting the importance of all peoples who make Canada the great nation that it is. With the generous sponsorship of industry and service groups, there will be delegations from Brazil, Belgium, Cuba, Nigeria, Slovakia and possibly Zimbabwe. Canada will be represented by two groups: our own MacCulloch Dancers, and Sondaky, a native aboriginal group from Quebec.

This year's event promises to be the biggest yet.

The organizers of both events are expecting to have good crowds, and I hope to see many of you there.

SENIORS GAMES

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to talk about the York region senior games, which are being hosted this year by the town of Georgina and my riding of York North from May 23 to June 9.

The Ontario Senior Games program began 18 years ago, and was initiated by the Older Adults Centres' Association of Ontario. In 1983, with financial assistance from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, the Ontario Senior Games had approximately 4,600 participants in 31 activities in 21 different communities.

In 1999, the Ontario Senior Games Association, with the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, and the seniors secretariat, began the groundwork for the first winter games for seniors in the province of Ontario. This is to be named Winterfest and held biannually on the odd-numbered years after the launch in 2000. This year it was held in the town of Collingwood and had over 400 competitors.

I would like to invite everyone to the town of Georgina to come and watch the York Region Ontario Senior Games.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the volunteers and extend best wishes to all the participants for their efforts.

ONTARIO WHOLE FARM RELIEF

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): Last week I asked the Minister of Agriculture a direct question concerning the rules he is using to evaluate inventory for the Ontario whole farm relief program that is denying Ontario farmers millions of dollars of federal money. The minister totally ignored my question, twice, and instead of answering, he produced one of his bafflegab answers to deflect the criticism of the farmers of Ontario on his refusal to distribute the money, as it must be done, as it is being done across Canada.

Instead the minister said it was the federal government that is holding up the money and pulling money out of the program. This is utter nonsense and he knows it. He does have the authority to issue those cheques, though he told this House he does not. He issued the money last year when the agreement with the feds was not signed until July. He knows very well what in interim payment is; he uses them himself.

The real issue he has been avoiding is his refusal to allow the changes in inventory which the federal government has adopted to give out millions more to Ontario farmers. I don't think he has the matching 40%. The farmers of Ontario know exactly what he is trying to do. The minister must not jeopardize farmers' access to millions of dollars of federal money. He must take immediate action to allow enhanced inventory assessment.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I have a letter in response to petitions I've been reading out on adoption disclosure reform. Minister Baird responds to this petition by saying that the ministry has invested $350,000 in the 1999-2000 fiscal year to respond to the seven-year backlog of the matches being made for people who are looking for each other. That budget increase is welcome, but it's missing the point.

I did meet recently with the minister and he certainly has not ruled out helping me get my private member's bill on adoption passed. I'm going to be introducing that bill again soon in the House, as you know; I did in the last session, and it died when the House was prorogued. However, I had strong support from all three parties in the House at that time. The same bill will be reintroduced with perhaps some new amendments, because at that time it came up so quickly, I didn't have time to add them.

I appreciate the fact that the minister did meet with me to discuss the bill. I had an opportunity to talk to the Premier and House Leader Sterling about it. This bill will be coming forward again. The time has come to pass it. Members will be hearing from me shortly. I hope very much that this time we can pass the adoption bill.

EVENTS IN NIAGARA REGION

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): This past weekend I once again had the wonderful opportunity of participating in the opening ceremonies for the annual Maid of the Mist Blossom Festival in Niagara Falls. This year the Blossom Festival has expanded to three weeks, with several free concerts at Queen Victoria Park with musical guests such as Blue Rodeo last weekend and Amanda Marshall this weekend. Attendance over the duration of the festival is expected to exceed 200,000.

Just last month, Minister of Tourism Cam Jackson provided the festival organizers, Brian Merritt and the Niagara Parks Commission, with $50,000 to help with the organization and promotion of this event. In addition to the funding for the festival, the Niagara Economic and Tourism Corp received close to $25,000 from the Ministry of Tourism to help market the Niagara region and to lure investors.

I would like to reiterate what Minister Cam Jackson said in Niagara-on-the-Lake last month: "The Niagara region is a hotbed of tourism activity. More opportunities exist here in the region than anywhere else in the province. This economic region is going to be the marquee for the province." Speaker, I think it already is.

In celebration of Tourism Week, which officially begins next week, I congratulate the organizers and participants of the festival. The previous dedicated and hard work of the Cummings family has kept the festival alive for many years. I encourage everyone to come and visit Niagara for this reinvigorated event.

SPECIAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): This government's systematic attack on the independent officers of this Parliament continues. These officers are the watchdogs of government and are totally objective individuals who are vigilant in their duties and give an open, honest and unbiased assessment of the government's performance.

First, last spring, it fired the Environmental Commissioner when she issued a very critical condemnation of this government on its environmental record in the last five years.

Next, it reduced the Ombudsman's term of office from 10 to five years and thereby severely compromised the total independence of this office.

It is now threatening the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner by having a legislative committee, dominated by government backbenchers, review the freedom of information and protection of privacy legislation because of her very critical report on the disclosure of personal financial information by the Ministry of Finance's own Province of Ontario Savings Office, which affects some 50,000 people in this province. As you know, in the report she states that her office experienced extensive difficulties from the Ministry of Finance in allowing her to do a full and complete investigation.

The people of Ontario can be assured that we on this side of the House will fight to ensure that any changes to the legislation will enhance and improve a person's ability to get information from the government in a faster and less costly manner. We will make sure that any information of unfounded allegations collected by the government will be immediately removed from government records and not kept for seven years, as is currently the practice. The government has completely ignored her recommendation that these records be removed within a one-year time period.

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): I'm honoured to rise today to congratulate the courageous men and women who participated in the recent Year 2000 Special Olympics held in York region. I had the pleasure to attend and speak at the opening ceremonies of the floor hockey event for these Special Olympians in my riding of Thornhill. In the early days of the Special Olympics we saw Harry Red Foster, that outstanding sportsman and famous broadcaster, accompany a floor hockey team from Toronto to the first international Special Olympics Games held in Chicago in 1968.

Red Foster was quick to see in the Special Olympics a further opportunity to enhance the lives of challenged Canadians. The rest of the story is history.

The Thornhill residents I represent were delighted to host this Special Olympics event. We were completely captivated by the enthusiasm, tenacity and achievement of each athlete.

The story of the Special Olympics is a source of great inspiration to me, to my constituents of Thornhill, and no doubt to every member of this House. The Year 2000 Special Olympics was truly one of this province's finest moments, and we celebrate the achievements of all who participated. Each of these athletes can serve as a role model to all of us. Their courage and determination is reflected in the oath they live by: "Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt."

These athletes, their dedicated coaches and the hundreds of volunteers who assist them deserve our heartiest congratulations. May they continue to follow their dreams and achieve their goals. On behalf of my constituents of Thornhill, I wish these fine athletes every success in the future.

VISITORS

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know you and all members of the Legislature would want to welcome the students and their chaperones from Mill Street Public School. They've travelled here to their Legislature from Leamington.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That's not a point of order, but we welcome the students.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin, today is the last day for the pages, and I think all the members would like to join in saying goodbye to our good friends. We wish them well in their endeavours.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Wednesday, May 10, 2000, the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke raised a point of privilege with respect to the special report on disclosure of personal information by the Province of Ontario Savings Office, Ministry of Finance, which was presented to this House on April 26, 2000, by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

In raising his point of privilege, the member argued that various officials inside the Ministry of Finance and elsewhere have perpetrated a contempt on this Legislature by frustrating an investigation undertaken by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. He refers to the commissioner's report in which she outlines the difficulties experienced by her office in conducting her investigation. The member quoted the commissioner as follows:

"In our view, the ministry endeavoured to restrict the scope of the investigation and the investigative tools available to the IPC. Attempts to interview current and former government officials ... were met with protracted negotiations and resulted in key individuals refusing to be interviewed."

The government House leader provided a written submission on this point in which he argued that there is no prima facie case of privilege because the Ministry of Finance co-operated with the Information and Privacy Commissioner at all times. He further stated that the ministry not only met its statutory obligations to participate in the investigation but also went beyond its legal requirements and encouraged its employees and all involved to assist the commissioner in her work.

The member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke requested that I review the matters raised for a determination that they "constitute a prima facie case of contempt."

With respect to both members and officers of the House, Erskine May has said on this matter of contempt, and again I quote:

"Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."

Section 46 of our own Legislative Assembly Act sets out the jurisdiction of this House to inquire into and punish, as breaches of privilege or as contempt, a number of matters including: "Assaults upon or interference with an officer of the assembly while in the execution of his or her duty."

In light of those authorities, I have carefully considered the arguments put forward by the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke as well as those submitted by the government House leader. In addition I have read the commissioner's report.

What I am left with are two opposing points of view: one that speaks of co-operation within the law and another that speaks of obstruction. I am not in a position to determine who is right and who is wrong and can only acknowledge that an unhelpful conflict exists.

My role and duty is simply as outlined by Maingot at page 221 of the second edition of the Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, to determine if "the evidence on its face as outlined by the member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee to investigate...." The role of the Speaker does not extend to deciding the question of substance or whether a contempt did in fact occur. That is ultimately up to the House to decide.

What I have to determine is whether or not a prima facie case of contempt has been established. The question for the Speaker is whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the member who has raised it to move a motion to have it considered further at committee.

In considering the question, I find the very fact that an officer of this House, a person selected by this Parliament and sworn to faithfully discharge her duties to this House, has taken the extraordinary step of advising us that the authority of her office was disregarded and discounted to the extent that she was, and again I quote from her report, "unable to conduct a full and complete investigation," is in and of itself a challenge to the supremacy of this House, from which she draws that authority.

In official business dealings with an officer of this House, individuals owe an obligation of accountability to Parliament. That our own officer advises that the opposite was the case is sufficient cause in my mind to find that a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament has been made out. How could it be otherwise? The privacy commissioner's sole loyalty is to this House, manifest in her trusted discharge of the role and functions assigned to her, by us, in this act.

At the end of the day, it may very well be that in this instance, the commissioner's inability to "conduct a full and complete investigation" emanates, as is argued by the government House leader, from a lack of statutory power. That may very well be the crux of the question as to whether or not a contempt occurred. But again, I am only charged with determining whether a prima facie case has been made out.

Having so found, I now recognize the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and invite him to move the motion of which he gave notice last Wednesday, which would very simply refer this matter to committee for consideration.

MOTIONS

SPECIAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Mr Speaker, I move that, in light of your ruling that a prima facie case of contempt has been made, the special report to this Legislative Assembly made on 26 April 2000 by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Dr Ann Cavoukian, concerning disclosures of personal information made by the Province of Ontario Savings Office in the Ministry of Finance and the obstruction the commissioner encountered in the course of her investigation, be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for its immediate consideration.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I will now call on the member for debate.

Mr Conway: I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak very briefly to the motion. I have to say that I obviously appreciate the care and consideration that not only you took in this matter, but my friend and colleague the government House leader, as you observed, tabled a six-page submission on behalf of the government on this matter.

I say again to my colleagues in the Legislature, as members of the Legislature, that the report presented to us by Dr Cavoukian, our Information and Privacy Commissioner, just a couple of weeks ago on 26 April says-let me just take you to her

summary of conclusions. On this day particularly, where the nation is seized of this matter of freedom of information and the protection of privacy, here is what our commissioner, our officer, said happened in the sphere of the Ontario government, the Ministry of Finance, privatization secretariat, in the summer of 1997.

Our officer, Dr Cavoukian, found, upon her albeit limited and apparently obstructed investigation, three things. She found that in the summer of 1997 personal, confidential information affecting 50,000 Ontarians who are depositors at the Ontario savings office was wrongly and illegally released into places where it ought not to have been released, and that there was a failure by the officials at the Ministry of Finance and at the privatization secretariat to take reasonable measures to protect against that kind of inappropriate and illegal release of the information.

Again let me remind you: 50,000 Ontarians who are depositors at the Province of Ontario Savings Office. I happen to be one, but there are almost 50,000 others, and they're not just in places like Toronto and Ottawa and Hamilton and London and Windsor; they're in places like Aylmer and Walkerton and Woodstock and Pembroke and a whole bunch of other places, large and small. These Ontario citizens had their confidential banking information released by their government. What kind of information? Their names, their social insurance numbers, their accounts, their account balances, all of it was released inappropriately, and according to Dr Cavoukian on page 25 of her own report, illegally.

She says clearly: "The three disclosures of personal information, (

a) from" the Pro